I have many friends that work for the TWRA that I went to TTU with. I deal with the TWRA and the TWRC at the very minimum of once per month and I can guarantee you that there are many, MANY people within the TWRA who think stocking a non-native species is wrong and should be done away with. They have told me so personally.

I know a couple of the TWRA guys who think this, are reading this thread. I bet not one has the balls to step forward and say their opinion out loud in a public forum though.....

I believe you , and have talked to a few with at TWRA very similar views as listed above. However the final say is gonna come down to revenue. If ditching the trout program will cost anyone lost revenue, it will stay.

I have many friends that work for the TWRA that I went to TTU with. I deal with the TWRA and the TWRC at the very minimum of once per month and I can guarantee you that there are many, MANY people within the TWRA who think stocking a non-native species is wrong and should be done away with. They have told me so personally.

I can understand where that type of opinion would come from...but before I jump on board anything remotely close to that bandwagon, I want to see all the artificial environments (i.e., tailwaters) go also...blast the dams, return the natives...

Seriously, this will obviously never happen, but it amuses me when people do not want to stock any non-native species into what is already an artificial environment that cannot support the native species very well anymore. Humans have messed things up a lot, the best thing we can do now is live with the consequences and help the waters adapt as best we can... If that means stocking a species that can actually survive in the now cold environment of the tailwaters, great!!! I'll enjoy fishing for them...

__________________
"Then He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" Matthew 4:19

According to the TWRA the fish cost $3 each, but, I understand what you are trying to say. However, many if not most of the other states are also using stocked trout to some extent. As you are probably aware, rainbow and brown trout are not even native to North America, much less Tennessee. What you may not know is that there are many folks within the TWRA who don't even think we should be stocking non-indigenous species like as rainbow and browns period.

This tailwater trout guide license ay very well be a way to fragment the fishing community to decrease the number of trout fishermen as a step in phasing out trout fishing for non-natives in the state all together.

Thanks for the correction on that stat, and glad you still got my point despite the bad math...

On another note, rainbows are native to North America, specifically the west coast...but as you said definitely not Tennessee...

__________________
"Then He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" Matthew 4:19

It is somewhat striking that TWRA folks would be against the stocking of trout because they are non native for a couple of reasons. They fill a void in the cold tailwaters that are too cold to support any species of native game fish. They provide a big chunk of revenue to the state each year. What I do not know, is whether the costs of the trout program run over the revenue received from license purchases. This would be almost impossible to prove because not everyone who buys a sportsman's license trout fishes, and some folks trout fish but do nothing else. So proving how much revenue comes in is virtually impossible.

Nothing would surprise me with some of the folks at TWRA, they don't really show the capacity to logically understand much.

Also, TWRA has certainly stocked other non-native species. The Elk which are here, are not even remotely native. Yes, I know we used to have Elk, but they are not the same as the Elk which have been stocked recently.

The bulk of our deer populations is non-native as well, they are made up of various sub species from all over the country.

The freaking nightmare geese also aren't supposed to live here, sure they can migrate through but establishing a resident population was solely created by TWRA 's effort.

How about the ever elusive walleye, I don't think they are native.

How about saugeye? A lab born hybrid is not native.

Yellow perch, not native.

Ohio River strain muskie in some of our rivers not native.

Blacknose crappie, another lab born hybrid is certainly not native.

Stripers, definitely not native.

Sturgeon, seriously don't think they are native.

And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.

[And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.]

I HAVE to agree with waterwolf on this one I have nothing against brook trout, they are fine as natives in the mountain streams, but in the tailwaters they are pretty much useless as a sport fish. I have caught them on the Watauga and the Clinch. They look terrible when they are first stocked, pale with yellow bellies A yellow-belly catfish is a better looking specimen than these dolts. They are easy to identify when hooked, it's like realing in a big chub Seriously, it is a waste, browns and rainbows work best in the tailwaters I have fished. I thought I heard that they stock brook trout because they get the eggs or maybe even the fish free from the feds. A prime example of government doing something stupid because it is the cheaper alternative.

I am pretty sure the first load of brook trout were free from the feds. I do not know anything about the ones since then.

However, nothing is free. There has to be transportation costs, and/or something we are giving the feds.

Here is another thing on this trout stocking issue. For a couple of years TWRA used Eagle Bend Hatchery on the Clinch to raise fingerlings which were raised as a result of stripping eggs and sperm from rainbows which moved up Clear Creek each winter. For at least 2 years and maybe more they were successful in raising something like 750,000 fingerlings. Then they just stopped for no apparent or explained reason.

I remember hearing the hatchery manager speak and talk about how it was very cost effective because during the colder months that hatchery isn't used, and they could raise those fingerlings for little cost.

I know I personally worked with them to collect the eggs and to fertilize those eggs.

That plan worked, and they quite doing it, why? Time to revisit that one I believe.

And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.

I'm all for stocking as many brookies as possible...brown trout food you know...

__________________
"Then He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" Matthew 4:19

I am pretty sure the first load of brook trout were free from the feds. I do not know anything about the ones since then.

However, nothing is free. There has to be transportation costs, and/or something we are giving the feds.

Here is another thing on this trout stocking issue. For a couple of years TWRA used Eagle Bend Hatchery on the Clinch to raise fingerlings which were raised as a result of stripping eggs and sperm from rainbows which moved up Clear Creek each winter. For at least 2 years and maybe more they were successful in raising something like 750,000 fingerlings. Then they just stopped for no apparent or explained reason.

I remember hearing the hatchery manager speak and talk about how it was very cost effective because during the colder months that hatchery isn't used, and they could raise those fingerlings for little cost.

I know I personally worked with them to collect the eggs and to fertilize those eggs.

That plan worked, and they quite doing it, why? Time to revisit that one I believe.

Seems like a good strategy using eggs etc. from fish that have been in the river a while. If this was done every year, wouldn't the fingerlings gradually be better adapted to living and thriving in the Clinch? Maybe it would take some time but I would assume that stronger fish would be attempting to spawn in Clear Creek and they would tend to produce good offspring.